Psychopharmacology/Advanced Practice Psychology

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
This is getting embarrassing for RxPers. The saddest part is RxPers from the 90s who pursued this instead of legitimately educating and training themselves via medical school and residency. And they are still trying to substitute education/training/expertise with politics in the year 2015.
I sincerely hope future grad students reading this thread realize what a Psy/PhD in Psych allows them to master and what it does not. We all have our scopes of practices and areas of expertise. Utilizing politics to change that is never ideal.

I join you in that hope. RxP is a political campaign using political means to expand financial and political opportunities. It is most definitely not an initiative to improve the health care system. While there are individuals who sincerely want to be able to help people with more treatment options, the campaign is nothing more than a brazen and often unethical attempt to stake out a more lucrative practice area, without any respect for science or the safety of patients, not to mention doing what's truly best for the health care system.

The actual proposal by the APA RxP campaign is simply indefensible, if not ridiculous. It has succeeded not because it is needed or that it is valid as a health care policy change. In the few places where it has been approved, it was done so with massive amounts of political money accompanied by the slimiest and most dishonest lobbying and public relations initiatives. It has failed so often because it is truly a bad idea.

Psychologists have always had the chance to prescribe medications based on the same training as anyone else. The campaign is about allowing psychologists to have specially lowered (i.e. dumbed-down) training requirements that are extremely convenient (learn to be a prescriber at home and on weekends, the ads say), and in a system completely controlled by psychologists. The saddest and most embarrassing part is that if RxP had to follow the same rules as others do, it would die in about one minute flat. The IL law wound up being exactly that, and it is considered by all as a massive barrier to the RxP campaign.

RxP is a shameful embarrassment, an example of what has gone wrong at APA, and how APA is degrading what it means to be a psychologist.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
"Your requests for data have involved expecting other people to do the work to answer your speculative questions."

Cogpsych demands evidence of safety. Then derides others asking anything of him.

$200 to my favorite rxp concern in honor of cogpsych.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
"Your requests for data have involved expecting other people to do the work to answer your speculative questions."

Cogpsych demands evidence of safety. Then derides others asking anything of him.

$200 to my favorite rxp concern in honor of cogpsych.

Am I eligible for the contest?
I think it would be great idea if you were to actually learn something about RxP as part of the conversation, since you are so interested in it.
As for explaining where information came from, I don't mind describing that, but I'm not here to do your work for you.
 
It's not so much as doing someone's work for them. For one, I don't get paid for it. Second, you are advancing a position which you claim as supported by evidence, of which you will not cite. It would seem to most reading the thread that the data is simply not there. Which, is ok. Many healthcare disciplines need to do a better job at safety, efficacy, and outcome data. It's just that one shouldn't advance an empirical argument in the absence of any real data.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Wow let me just point out that this is the most longest lasting thread I have seen active (10 years!!). What are you guys (and gals!) stance on a person having a Psych PhD/PsyD or even be a masters level provider and also having a PA or NP degree so that the person is trained in therapy and prescribing? Do you think this is trying to play the system already in place or is a good combination to have for patients? (oh and keep in mind I have not looked entirely through this thread so if this has been answered already can someone please direct me to where it was answered?)
 
I don't have too much objection to a psychologist also becoming an NP so they can prescribe. The NPs I have worked with were extremely limited in their knowledge of psychopathology and psychotherapy so a psychologist with an NP would be an upgrade. However, I don't know if prescription privileges are really the way to go for our profession. Positioning ourselves as the experts on psychology and leave the expertise on the psychobiological to the psychiatrists and then team up with them to promote that midlevels should not be acting completely independently as though they had equivalent training would be a better plan for us and our patients. At least that is where my thinking is today.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
What is your opinion on Psychologists being able to prescribe? Do you think they should or shouldn't?
If yes, do you think a specific specialty of psych should be restricted to do it such a Neuropsych?

I know some of the arguments for theses rights are more comprehensive care for psychologists as they usually need to work along side a psychiatrist due to their lack of prescribing rights. Also is the argument that PA's and APRN's have prescriptive authority and they often have less pharmacology training than psychologists.

On reason that I think would be good, and this might seem counterintuitive, is it's impact on society. There's such an issue with addiction in this country in part by doctors over prescribing. I think Psychologists modest approach and view on pharmacology due to their greater focus on psychotherapy would benefit society in that when a patient came to see them for comprehensive care and treatment, the psychologist would be restrictive and modest with medications and would reserve it for situations where it was really necessary and would try other approaches first.

Also, people see it as infringing on psychologists approach. I don't see this as an issue because they would get psychotherapy training AFTER their phd, so they would still have the primary research, psychotherapeutic and testing training that is essential t psychology. Also, psychiatrists over the years have been allowed to get training and provide psychotherapy so why can't a psychologist get pharmacology training.
 
What is your opinion on Psychologists being able to prescribe? Do you think they should or shouldn't?
If yes, do you think a specific specialty of psych should be restricted to do it such a Neuropsych?

I know some of the arguments for theses rights are more comprehensive care for psychologists as they usually need to work along side a psychiatrist due to their lack of prescribing rights. Also is the argument that PA's and APRN's have prescriptive authority and they often have less pharmacology training than psychologists.

On reason that I think would be good, and this might seem counterintuitive, is it's impact on society. There's such an issue with addiction in this country in part by doctors over prescribing. I think Psychologists modest approach and view on pharmacology due to their greater focus on psychotherapy would benefit society in that when a patient came to see them for comprehensive care and treatment, the psychologist would be restrictive and modest with medications and would reserve it for situations where it was really necessary and would try other approaches first.

Also, people see it as infringing on psychologists approach. I don't see this as an issue because they would get psychotherapy training AFTER their phd, so they would still have the primary research, psychotherapeutic and testing training that is essential t psychology. Also, psychiatrists over the years have been allowed to get training and provide psychotherapy so why can't a psychologist get pharmacology training.

Mod Note: Merged into the Psychopharmacology/Advanced Practice sticky
 
Yes I think RxP for psychologists is possible, with solid additional training, and in collaboration w a physician. I'm conservative in my approach, though I think it offers the best balance between access and safety.
 
Isn't the reason as to why RxP is being given to psychologists is because of the rural areas not having enough psychiatrists to provide medication?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Isn't the reason as to why RxP is being given to psychologists is because of the rural areas not having enough psychiatrists to provide medication?
Yes, and no. It's a deeply complicated issue. Everyone uses the rural argument for a lot of things, but the truth of the matter is, almost every medical specialty faces a shortage of providers in rural areas. If anything, I'd just like to see it used to simplify some patient's pharma load and get them appropriate treatment. E.g., my elderly patients really do not need hydroxyzine to treat mild anxiety and sleep issues. Especially when you consider it's potent anticholinergic properties. Conversely though, that's likely not what insurers or medical centers will pay these provides to do. My worry is that they would just be used like psychiatrist's and APRN's to just push meds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
How could a great profession like psychiatry become a profession that pill pushes? What happened to the old psychiatry? Gosh our mental health care system is pretty screwed up
 
How could a great profession like psychiatry become a profession that pill pushes? What happened to the old psychiatry? Gosh our mental health care system is pretty screwed up

I trace it back to the advent and rise of HMOs. All of that fun "cost containment" really perversed the healthcare market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes, and no. It's a deeply complicated issue. Everyone uses the rural argument for a lot of things, but the truth of the matter is, almost every medical specialty faces a shortage of providers in rural areas. If anything, I'd just like to see it used to simplify some patient's pharma load and get them appropriate treatment. E.g., my elderly patients really do not need hydroxyzine to treat mild anxiety and sleep issues. Especially when you consider it's potent anticholinergic properties. Conversely though, that's likely not what insurers or medical centers will pay these provides to do. My worry is that they would just be used like psychiatrist's and APRN's to just push meds.

But I feel as though they use APRN's just for that purpose largely in part because APRN's don't have a lot of training in psychotherapy so they can't really be utilized for that. Whereas a psychologist with pharmacology training would be training well in both, prescribing and psychotherapy.
 
But I feel as though they use APRN's just for that purpose largely in part because APRN's don't have a lot of training in psychotherapy so they can't really be utilized for that. Whereas a psychologist with pharmacology training would be training well in both, prescribing and psychotherapy.

No, they use APRN's in that purpose largely because you can bill a lot more for med management than you can for psychotherapy. Our healthcare system is all about billable hours and how much those hours are worth, regardless of what the outcome is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
No, they use APRN's in that purpose largely because you can bill a lot more for med management than you can for psychotherapy. Our healthcare system is all about billable hours and how much those hours are worth, regardless of what the outcome is.

OK so let's say we lived in a nation or society where Healthcare isn't all about billable hours and money. How would you then feel about psychologist prescribing right?
 
No, they use APRN's in that purpose largely because you can bill a lot more for med management than you can for psychotherapy. Our healthcare system is all about billable hours and how much those hours are worth, regardless of what the outcome is.
Exactly. If I had RxP, this hospital would not want me to do psychotherapy, they would want me to crank out the med management visits to maximize the RVUs. Our APRN wants to do psychotherapy (even without training in it, of course) and the hospital won't let them only because of the financial reason.
 
OK so let's say we lived in a nation or society where Healthcare isn't all about billable hours and money. How would you then feel about psychologist prescribing right?

As long as they had adequate training, and coordinated care with a physician, I'd be all for it. I'm not a fan of the current online only RxP being propagated by some of the diploma mills.
 
OK so let's say we lived in a nation or society where Healthcare isn't all about billable hours and money. How would you then feel about psychologist prescribing right?

InfoNerd101, what level of training are you?

In order to answer many of your questions you need to realize that the real world is not an ideal situation and healthcare will, unfortunately, never not be "all about billable hours and money". This is sad but true, any many important decisions are made, frankly, by politicians wearing nice suits that are lobbied with money. They are not made based solely on reason or a thorough calculation of risks/benefits to society or our mentally ill. Case in point: NPs practicing independently. If you look at PAs and NPs, NPs are able to practice independently solely because of the huge nursing lobby, while the actual medical training of a PA is of better quality.

I think everyone here would agree that a clinical psychologist with adequate psychopharmacology training and physician supervision would be much more desirable and in general much more likely to be competent and safe than an NP plus adequate psychotherapy training. The problem is that there are many debatable points here. The vague terms "adequate", "safe", "supervision", etc... need to be defined. What is "adequate" psychopharmacology training? In medical school I spent 4 years studying anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, each of which were separate classes followed by full-time clinical rotations in core medical specialties, after which I realized I had only learned the basics of medicine which were to be further refined through 4 more years of intense residency training. There is no substitute for suffering through all of these things in order to safely and competently practice (and understand) medicine. To me, online medical education for NPs is an absolute joke, and I can't even repeat some of the questions some NPs have asked me. Okay, okay, I'll repeat 2 things off the top of my head. Recently an NP asked me what oxycodone ER was... and recently during an ECT session, when asked why succinylcholine is given to the patient, one NP responded "so you get a good seizure?" These are not the people you want treating your family members. Back to the poorly definable terms: what is "adequate" psychotherapy training for NPs? Have you seen an NP skilled in practicing psychotherapy? Me neither. In my very opinionated and narrow point of view, these clinicians are solely used for "pushing meds" and making money for the system. They are good for boosting the income of hospitals, boosting the income of physicians/psychologists in a practice they work for, and basically nothing else. To have them practice independently is beyond me. By the way, "filling a rural gap", "provider shortage", yada yada, are all political buzz words and mean nothing, watch out for them.

As for RxP, this is an interesting prospect, but first we need that definition of "adequate" psychopharm training. Recently, I think there were a bunch of politicians who shot themselves in the feet fighting for RxP legislation by getting a law passed basically requiring PA-level education, and setting precedent for future similar laws. I think this PA level education, while an inconvenient amount of further education for a group of professionals who just finished suffering through graduate school, externships, internships, post-docs, etc... may in the end be the only way to get an adequate level of actual clinical experience and generalized medical education needed to be able to do this thing safely and appropriately. I'm going to stop myself short before going on about the definitions of "safe" or "supervision" because this post may already be too long, but there are many many debatable things to be debated here.

Also, we must point out that most of psychologists don't even want or support this.

Sorry for the long post, my reading-to-posting ratio is usually a lot higher
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
InfoNerd101, what level of training are you?

In order to answer many of your questions you need to realize that the real world is not an ideal situation and healthcare will, unfortunately, never not be "all about billable hours and money". This is sad but true, any many important decisions are made, frankly, by politicians wearing nice suits that are lobbied with money. They are not made based solely on reason or a thorough calculation of risks/benefits to society or our mentally ill. Case in point: NPs practicing independently. If you look at PAs and NPs, NPs are able to practice independently solely because of the huge nursing lobby, while the actual medical training of a PA is of better quality.

I think everyone here would agree that a clinical psychologist with adequate psychopharmacology training and physician supervision would be much more desirable and in general much more likely to be competent and safe than an NP plus adequate psychotherapy training. The problem is that there are many debatable points here. The vague terms "adequate", "safe", "supervision", etc... need to be defined. What is "adequate" psychopharmacology training? In medical school I spent 4 years studying anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, each of which were separate classes followed by full-time clinical rotations in core medical specialties, after which I realized I had only learned the basics of medicine which were to be further refined through 4 more years of intense residency training. There is no substitute for suffering through all of these things in order to safely and competently practice (and understand) medicine. To me, online medical education for NPs is an absolute joke, and I can't even repeat some of the questions some NPs have asked me. Okay, okay, I'll repeat 2 things off the top of my head. Recently an NP asked me what oxycodone ER was... and recently during an ECT session, when asked why succinylcholine is given to the patient, one NP responded "so you get a good seizure?" These are not the people you want treating your family members. Back to the poorly definable terms: what is "adequate" psychotherapy training for NPs? Have you seen an NP skilled in practicing psychotherapy? Me neither. In my very opinionated and narrow point of view, these clinicians are solely used for "pushing meds" and making money for the system. They are good for boosting the income of hospitals, boosting the income of physicians/psychologists in a practice they work for, and basically nothing else. To have them practice independently is beyond me. By the way, "filling a rural gap", "provider shortage", yada yada, are all political buzz words and mean nothing, watch out for them.

As for RxP, this is an interesting prospect, but first we need that definition of "adequate" psychopharm training. Recently, I think there were a bunch of politicians who shot themselves in the feet fighting for RxP legislation by getting a law passed basically requiring PA-level education, and setting precedent for future similar laws. I think this PA level education, while an inconvenient amount of further education for a group of professionals who just finished suffering through graduate school, externships, internships, post-docs, etc... may in the end be the only way to get an adequate level of actual clinical experience and generalized medical education needed to be able to do this thing safely and appropriately. I'm going to stop myself short before going on about the definitions of "safe" or "supervision" because this post may already be too long, but there are many many debatable things to be debated here.

Also, we must point out that most of psychologists don't even want or support this.

Sorry for the long post, my reading-to-posting ratio is usually a lot higher
Let me guess, succhinylcholine is a paralytic agent that is administered to help prevent injury from the induced seizure? I am serious when I said guess because I don't do ECT and it is well outside my scope of practice so I don't devote too much time to studying it. I concur with your assessment of NPs and my biggest concern is their lack of awareness of what they don't know. I am comfortable enough with my own medical knowledge to know that I am little better than a well-educated amateur which prevents me from giving medical advice to patients.

In contrast, our NP was giving child rearing advice to one of my patients today based on.....? Coincidentally, this is one of the few patients that the NP is treating for Bipolar Disorder that actually has it. Diagnostic reliability is clearly one area that psychologists seem superior to NPs based on my limited sample. It does make sense that this would be the case given our focus on assessment and knowledge of research and methods for improving diagnostic reliability.

I really liked the way you framed the question about needing to determine the level of medical knowledge that is sufficient as I would not want to go from being a top-notch provider of psychological services to being a second-rate prescriber of psychotropic medications.

Oh, and I am pretty sure that infonerd is in undergrad and is just trying to get a grasp of the field of mental health and all the different roles that the various people have. As more and more midlevels get their online alphabet soup degrees, it is getting more and more confusing for the public and many have a vested interest in making it so and it's not for the public's benefit, that's for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Let me guess, succhinylcholine is a paralytic agent that is administered to help prevent injury from the induced seizure? I am serious when I said guess because I don't do ECT and it is well outside my scope of practice so I don't devote too much time to studying it. I concur with your assessment of NPs and my biggest concern is their lack of awareness of what they don't know. I am comfortable enough with my own medical knowledge to know that I am little better than a well-educated amateur which prevents me from giving medical advice to patients.

In contrast, our NP was giving child rearing advice to one of my patients today based on.....? Coincidentally, this is one of the few patients that the NP is treating for Bipolar Disorder that actually has it. Diagnostic reliability is clearly one area that psychologists seem superior to NPs based on my limited sample. It does make sense that this would be the case given our focus on assessment and knowledge of research and methods for improving diagnostic reliability.

I really liked the way you framed the question about needing to determine the level of medical knowledge that is sufficient as I would not want to go from being a top-notch provider of psychological services to being a second-rate prescriber of psychotropic medications.

Oh, and I am pretty sure that infonerd is in undergrad and is just trying to get a grasp of the field of mental health and all the different roles that the various people have. As more and more midlevels get their online alphabet soup degrees, it is getting more and more confusing for the public and many have a vested interest in making it so and it's not for the public's benefit, that's for sure.

Yes, that is correct. I am an undergrad and currently work in the mental health field, love it, and want to advance. However, when I research on what avenue I should advance in within the mental health field, since there are so many different types of mental health providers (msw, Aprn, etc), I get so many different and conflicting responses, answers and just overall get confused and lost on what route to take or what would be best for me.

For example, one person will say go the MSW route because clinical social workers are in demand, flexible, broad scope of practice, can get extensive psychotherapy training in many modalities and are utilized in so many different settings.. Others will say don't do that route because the pay is so horrible and I should go the psych APRN route because they can do therapy and diagnose, and can do whatever a social worker or psychologist can do and more.

Others will say go the clinical psychologist route because they are the only ones that can perform psychological tests and evaluations and you can specialize in Neuro and potentially have prescription rights (which I happen to find Neuro interesting)

Then others will say that psych APRN's don't have the greatest diagnostic and therapeutic skills compared to other professionals so I shouldn't go that route.

And still others will say don't go the psychologist route as they are a dying profession, make no money in comparison to their education level and are slowly being replaced with master level clinicians (ie. MSW's and LPC's) who can do just about everything a psychologist can do.

So you see, it's a very confusing situation especially when your recieve conflicting advice. After working with each type of professional and observing them I can honestly say I can see myself doing any one of those careers. I even find the mental health Occupational Therapist I work with fascinating and like their approach to mental health and can see myself doing that as well.

Any feedback would be great. Thanks in advance!
 
Yes, that is correct. I am an undergrad and currently work in the mental health field, love it, and want to advance. However, when I research on what avenue I should advance in within the mental health field, since there are so many different types of mental health providers (msw, Aprn, etc), I get so many different and conflicting responses, answers and just overall get confused and lost on what route to take or what would be best for me.

For example, one person will say go the MSW route because clinical social workers are in demand, flexible, broad scope of practice, can get extensive psychotherapy training in many modalities and are utilized in so many different settings.. Others will say don't do that route because the pay is so horrible and I should go the psych APRN route because they can do therapy and diagnose, and can do whatever a social worker or psychologist can do and more.

Others will say go the clinical psychologist route because they are the only ones that can perform psychological tests and evaluations and you can specialize in Neuro and potentially have prescription rights (which I happen to find Neuro interesting)

Then others will say that psych APRN's don't have the greatest diagnostic and therapeutic skills compared to other professionals so I shouldn't go that route.

And still others will say don't go the psychologist route as they are a dying profession, make no money in comparison to their education level and are slowly being replaced with master level clinicians (ie. MSW's and LPC's) who can do just about everything a psychologist can do.

So you see, it's a very confusing situation especially when your recieve conflicting advice. After working with each type of professional and observing them I can honestly say I can see myself doing any one of those careers. I even find the mental health Occupational Therapist I work with fascinating and like their approach to mental health and can see myself doing that as well.

Any feedback would be great. Thanks in advance!

None of this should be a surprise to you. Psychology 101: biases.

You are not receiving conflicting "advice." You are receiving biases perceptions. Can I ARNP do psychotherapy? Sure. No one has a copyright on therapy right? Are they gonna be any good at it. Likely not, if you play the odds (the odds being they were never trained in therapy). Are psychologist being forced out in some setting? Probably. It doesnt happen where I am though. Is SW a flexible field? I suppose. It not like any of this information is wrong, or even conflicting really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And people don't want to make a mistake obviously. Nobody wants to invest x amount of years into something and then be out of a job. The idea that psychology is dying out though..not sure where that comes from. If psychology didn't die when psychology = psychoanalysis, not sure why it would now.
 
None of this should be a surprise to you. Psychology 101: biases.

You are not receiving conflicting "advice." You are receiving biases perceptions. Can I ARNP do psychotherapy? Sure. No one has a copyright on therapy right? Are they gonna be any good at it. Likely not, if you play the odds (the odds being they were never trained in therapy). Are psychologist being forced out in some setting? Probably. It doesnt happen where I am though. Is SW a flexible field? I suppose. It not like any of this information is wrong, or even conflicting really.

Right but taking all of these "biases" into account, how do you know who's biased advice to follow lol.
 
And people don't want to make a mistake obviously. Nobody wants to invest x amount of years into something and then be out of a job. The idea that psychology is dying out though..not sure where that comes from. If psychology didn't die when psychology = psychoanalysis, not sure why it would now.

Right, but these people aren't talking about psychological theories being applied to other professions (ie, psychoanalysis training for MSW's), they are talking about the actual field of applied clinical psychology being replaced by those with less education such as clinical social workers and licensed practicing counselors.
 
Last edited:
And people don't want to make a mistake obviously. Nobody wants to invest x amount of years into something and then be out of a job.

And correct, as you also stated, I don't want to invest tons of time and money into schooling only to find out the opportunities in that particular field are scarce and/or it isn't for me. (I already made that mistake once. When I went off to school the first time after high school, I had no idea what I wanted to do at that young age, and this was before I realized I liked mental health and so I ended up majoring in elementary education which I HATED).
 
I think the general consensus from the forum has been that if you specialize, you will have job security (ie neuropsych, forensic, health psychology, rehab psych, etc) if you stay a generalist, then yes, you may face some issues in the future. (but again, not guaranteed that you will)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Infonerd,

Being a undergrad myself, I know what it feels like to go through all of the conflicting biases that a lot of the mental health providers give here. I have gone through so many end-career changes (i.e. LCSW, LPC, Clinical Psychologist, Neuropsych, etc.) that I have not focused on what I am doing now. I think the best thing that you could do right now is shadow the many different providers, get research experience (if you are a undergrad psych major start contacting lab professors) and focus mostly on what you are accomplishing now while slowly thinking about the future. From my experience, if you worry about the future too much you are gonna lose track of what you are doing now and will become confused and depressed because you do not for sure what you will do

PsychUndergrad18
 
Infonerd,

Being a undergrad myself, I know what it feels like to go through all of the conflicting biases that a lot of the mental health providers give here. I have gone through so many end-career changes (i.e. LCSW, LPC, Clinical Psychologist, Neuropsych, etc.) that I have not focused on what I am doing now. I think the best thing that you could do right now is shadow the many different providers, get research experience (if you are a undergrad psych major start contacting lab professors) and focus mostly on what you are accomplishing now while slowly thinking about the future. From my experience, if you worry about the future too much you are gonna lose track of what you are doing now and will become confused and depressed because you do not for sure what you will do

PsychUndergrad18

Thank you for the insight! I didn't think picking your forever job would be so difficult lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think the general consensus from the forum has been that if you specialize, you will have job security (ie neuropsych, forensic, health psychology, rehab psych, etc) if you stay a generalist, then yes, you may face some issues in the future. (but again, not guaranteed that you will)

To add to this point, some work is being lost by Family doctors in my neck of the woods, so wouldn't be shocking if it happened to Generalist Psychologist. In my province in Canada, pharmacists can now give flu shots, and there was talk that they may be allowed to prescribe. (at least some drugs)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
But why a pharmacists? I understand that they have training in all things drug related but wouldn't it not be beneficial to them.
 
To be fair, some of this work should be being lost. In the majority of people, there is no need for a physician to do simple things like flu shots. I'm all for making certain medical procedures and interventions available at a cheaper cost where it makes sense. Even in psychology, if a lower level provider can do things at a similar competence level with similar outcomes, all the better for the consumer.
 
But why a pharmacists? I understand that they have training in all things drug related but wouldn't it not be beneficial to them.

Because places like Walgreens and Rite-Aid offer flu shots. Pick up your prescription, get a flu shot real quick. It's convenient and it takes like 10 seconds.
 
Because places like Walgreens and Rite-Aid offer flu shots. Pick up your prescription, get a flu shot real quick. It's convenient and it takes like 10 seconds.

especially convenient for elderly people.
 
Because places like Walgreens and Rite-Aid offer flu shots. Pick up your prescription, get a flu shot real quick. It's convenient and it takes like 10 seconds.
There is also no reason people should have to go to the doc to get really common prescriptions for stuff that are relatively safe. So i'd like to see that change in my province as well.
 
There is also no reason people should have to go to the doc to get really common prescriptions for stuff that are relatively safe. So i'd like to see that change in my province as well.

So you think more medications should be over the counter?
 
There is also no reason people should have to go to the doc to get really common prescriptions for stuff that are relatively safe. So i'd like to see that change in my province as well.

This is a really uninformed opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There is also no reason people should have to go to the doc to get really common prescriptions for stuff that are relatively safe. So i'd like to see that change in my province as well.
There is already a mechanism in place for that, they are called over the counter medications. Are you really advocating that medications that directly affect the most complex organ system in the body shoulld be that accessible? Also what would be the benefit to patients or society? Also, think about the fact that it is not just the safety of the medication itself but also the risk of the illness it is treating that has to be considered. I want my patients who need psychotropics to be getting them from a doctor, preferably a psychiatrist who understands the complexity of the bio-psycho-social mechanisms of mental illness and how to assess severity and tailor treatment recommendations. How many people know how to self treat and self diagnose PTSD vs severe depression vs adjustment disorder vs OCD vs Bipolar, etc?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yeah, I'll be honest..I didn't exactly have an idea of what I meant with the statement I made. Just in a general sense thought maybe there was some drugs that could be prescribed by the pharmacists, that would not pose any risks. Like in my province pharmacists can prescribe medications related to smoking cessation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There is also no reason people should have to go to the doc to get really common prescriptions for stuff that are relatively safe. So i'd like to see that change in my province as well.

By definition, drugs that are "relatively safe" can be found on the shelves in your local pharmacy. Those that are not relatively safe generally require a careful clinical examination before they are prescribed to a patient, and they should. There are many drugs that most people would say are safe in general that in fact are not. For example, the COX inhibitor salicyclic acid (aspirin), one of the most widely available and cheap medicines, is responsible for a very large amount of GI bleeds and unintentional overdose deaths today because it so strong, and would require a prescription if it were invented today. Diphenhydramine (Benadryl), a medication commonly used by most of us for cold sx and insomnia (short term), if used in the elderly has a high risk for dilirium and urinary retention. OTC steroids (hydrocortisone 1.0 %) if empirically used to treat a "rash" than turns out to be an infection (fungal, bacterial, etc...) can make it worse. Acetaminophen (Tylenol, Paracetamol, etc..) can destroy a person's liver in daily doses not much past the recommended daily amt, and is a tragic ending to the life of a borderline making a gesture with the intent of just escaping a bunch of emotions (if you're wondering how important your liver is, it's called the "live"er for a reason). Even the flu shot, which is usually benign, has complications of its own. If not placed correctly into the right area of the muscle can cause nerve damage, and rarely can cause Guillan Barre syndrome, and more commonly is associated with either fainting or a generalized dermatological reaction. These are all things that are commonly considered to be "relatively safe", though can have a real and tangible adverse outcome that can end up bad if not monitored or at least predicted by a qualified health professional. Again (referring to my last post), the reason why many decisions are made has to do with politics and how as a society we can save a buck by employing the most minimally qualified satisfactory worker, but the definition of "satisfactory" only exists until something really bad happens. By something bad, I mean the death of a wealthy politician's child.

To be honest and fair, pharmacists have been indespensible to me. As an example, when I admitted a pt to the unit last week and started them on their home anti-inflammatory pain medication (celecoxib bid prn) and tried to order ibuprofen 400 mg po q6 prn for a headache they complained about, the pharmacist caught that and recommended maybe not doing that or considering something else for pain. This was very important, and is why pharmacists are paid for what they do (among many other things). However, it would be odd if I went into a pharmacy and I encountered a pharmacist who was willing to give me a clinical examination and prescribe me a mecication for a medical condition. For a pharmacist to practice clinical medicine without a background or training in clinical medicine, I would be very skeptical and would seriously consider the political reasons for why this seems to be the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Yeah, I'll be honest..I didn't exactly have an idea of what I meant with the statement I made. Just in a general sense thought maybe there was some drugs that could be prescribed by the pharmacists, that would not pose any risks. Like in my province pharmacists can prescribe medications related to smoking cessation.

The malpractice climate in the states makes this a whole different ballgame. What meds are pharmacists giving for smoking cessation in the provinces you are referring to? I'll bet its not Chantix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm still confused what MP looks like from a billing perspective. What CPT codes do MPs use. For example, would it be more appropriate to use a psychotherapy + med mgmt add-on code, or an E/M code, or would it depend on the case? How does MP affect actual earnings, and specifically, how does it affect income in a PP environment and a staff psychology position?
 
I'm still confused what MP looks like from a billing perspective. What CPT codes do MPs use. For example, would it be more appropriate to use a psychotherapy + med mgmt add-on code, or an E/M code, or would it depend on the case? How does MP affect actual earnings, and specifically, how does it affect income in a PP environment and a staff psychology position?
My understanding from psychiatrist's response on this very question a few days ago is that we could only use a psychotherapy code with the med management add-on code. EM codes are reserved for physicians only.
 
Top